Comments on: Where Do Progressive Evangelicals Stand on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment?

By: McLaren Answers the Stupak Question » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:01:33 +0000

[...] after my post “Where do ProgressiveEvangelicals Stand on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment?”, I got an blast email from the folks over at Sojourners calling attention to a Sojourners article [...]

By: Jesse

Jesse — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:21:29 +0000

McLaren pretty much implicitly rejected the Stupak amendment in his column at Sojourners today, saying:

“That faulty diagnosis seems to be shared in recent speculation that the Stupak amendment — which went beyond the abortion neutrality called for by all the Christian progressives I’m aware of — was added to the House health-care bill as part of a long-standing plan by progressive religious forces. Those speculations are undermined by the fact that the amendment was added to bring some hesitant conservative Democrats on board, but it took Christian progressives by surprise as much as anyone.”

He is saying basically that none of the progressive Christians (including him and Wallis and the Sojo crowd, presumably) supported the Stupak amendment. Is there any other way to read it?

By: Joe DeVet

Joe DeVet — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:05:05 +0000

I think it’s important to reject socialized medicine on many Christian principles. First, abortion (regardless of the amendment) will become more encouraged and supported with either federal funds or forced insurance premium payments by all of us. Second, we oldsters will be encouraged, or worse, to check out before we break the federal bank. Third, the principle of subsidiarity is so roundly violated by such a plan that we will be ensured universally bad health care.